1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

In the court of first instance, the plaintiff sought to pay the defendant the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, ② unpaid management expenses, ③ expenses for delivery execution. The court of first instance fully accepted the claim for expenses for delivery execution, and partly accepted the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and unpaid management expenses.

As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal only against the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 29, 2015 to July 29, 2015.

Therefore, since the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to the claim of unjust enrichment corresponding to the above period, it should be judged only.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, from April 29, 2015 to July 29, 2015, the defendant should return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the ground that the defendant occupied the real estate attached to the plaintiff's ownership (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") without permission until July 29, 2015 when the delivery execution of the apartment of this case was completed.

Benefits in the claim for return of unjust enrichment mean the substantial benefits, and it occupies a building without legal grounds.

If it is not possible to use or make profit from it for its original purpose, it shall not be deemed that it has gained substantial profit from its original purpose.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da25830 delivered on November 24, 1992). We examine the above legal doctrine in light of the instant case.

According to the overall purport of Gap 1, 2, 6, 1, and 6's statements and arguments, the defendant leased and occupied the apartment of this case from C on August 12, 2012. On February 16, 2011, the voluntary auction procedure is commenced upon the application of the relevant agricultural cooperative, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, which was established on February 16, 201, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership by purchasing the apartment of this case at the above auction procedure on February 17, 2015. The plaintiff completed the delivery execution of the apartment of this case on July 29, 2015 upon receipt of an order to deliver real estate with Changwon District Court Jin-gu Branch D.